MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparison of bimodality versus trimodality therapy for esophageal or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer: Experience from the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre.

2018· article· en· W4241701342 on OpenAlexaff
Akina Natori, Hao‐Wen Sim, Bryan Chan, Peiran Sun, Stephanie Moignard, Daniel Yokom, Charles Henry Lim, Di Jiang, Lucy Xiaolu, Eric Xueyu Chen, Geoffrey Liu, Jennifer J. Knox, Gail Darling, J. Yeung, Rebecca Wong, Sara Hafezi‐Bakhtiari, James Conner, Patrik Rogalla, Raymond Woo-Jun Jang, Elena Elimova

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai HospitalToronto General HospitalUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEsophageal cancerHazard ratioCancerAdenocarcinomaProportional hazards modelInternal medicineRadiation therapyConfidence intervalGastroenterologySurgeryOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

122 Background: There are no phase 3 trials comparing definitive chemoradiation (bimodality) versus. perioperative chemoradiation (trimodality) for locoregional esophageal/GEJ cancer. Methods: A retrospective analysis (2011-2015) compared bimodality and trimodality therapy in patients (pts) with locoregional esophageal/GEJ cancer treated with curative intent. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were calculated from the date of diagnosis. Uni- and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression adjusted for patient and disease factors. Results: Of 108 patients, 82 (76%) were male. Mean ages were 69.5 ± 11.0 years (bimodality; N = 41) and 60.5 ± 11.1 years (trimodality; N = 67). For bimodality pts, 37% had adenocarcinoma and 63% had squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). For trimodality pts, 79% had adenocarcinoma and 21% had SCC (p < 0.0001). Bimodality pts received a higher radiation dose compared to trimodality pts (50.1 ± 6.7 vs. 45.2 ± 6.4 Gy). Median follow-up was 49.3 months. We found no significant OS difference between bimodality (27.0 months) and trimodality therapy (29.8 months) in the overall cohort (p = 0.57) (4 year OS rate: 42% vs. 38%). In the subgroup with adenocarcinoma histology, trimodality therapy significantly improved OS and DFS compared to bimodality (OS: 31.8 vs. 10.4 months, hazard ratio (HR) 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18-0.66, p = 0.001; DFS: 15.0 vs. 6.7 months; HR 0.39, 95%CI 0.21-0.73, p = 0.003). In the SCC subgroup, median OS and DFS were similar (OS: not reached vs. 29.2 months, p = 0.48; DFS: 27.0 vs. 24.0, p = 0.96). Using multivariable regression with AIC backward selection, the only retained prognostic factors were treatment modality (p = 0.06) and histology (p = 0.01). Conclusions: Our findings support preferential use of trimodality therapy for pts with adenocarcinoma histology given superior OS and DFS, whereas bimodality and trimodality therapy appeared comparable in pts with SCC histology. Pending confirmation in a larger series with longer follow-up, these findings suggest differential treatment algorithms for locoregional esophageal and GEJ cancer based on tumor histology.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.320
GPT teacher head0.582
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicEsophageal Cancer Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207